Laserfiche WebLink
addressed the items identified in the Division's second adequacy review letter <br />On December 5th, 2012 the Division received a letter from Jim Stover in response to the Division's first <br />adequacy review letter. This letter included several monitoring well abandonment reports and a <br />description of the current condition and future plans for the remaining monitoring wells. This letter <br />partially addressed these items from the Division's first adequacy review letter. <br />On December 14, 2012 the Division sent Mr. Stover and the Operator a third adequacy review letter. <br />This letter summarized the remaining items from the Divisions first adequacy review letter and clarified <br />what items had been addressed. Several monitoring wells remained to be transferred to their respective <br />landowners in accordance with Rule 4.05.14(2). The Division outlined the documentation necessary to <br />satisfy this rule. Finally, the Division requested documentation that weed control had occurred and that <br />the affected area associated with Sediment Pond A had been reseeded. <br />On December 31, 2012 the Division received a response to the third adequacy review letter. This letter <br />included the documentation required for Division approval of the monitoring well transfer for two of the <br />remaining four monitoring wells. It explained that well permits were applied for the two remaining <br />monitoring wells and that it may take an additional 30 days to obtain these permits. Also included was <br />the documentation that weed control and seeding of the Pond A area had occurred. <br />On January 22, 2013, the Division sent Mr. Stover and the Operator a fourth adequacy review letter. <br />This letter cited a discrepancy in regards to one of the monitoring wells previously indicated to have <br />been destroyed but was subsequently transferred to the landowner and permitted. The Division <br />requested clarification on this point. Finally, the Division explained the documentation needed to obtain <br />approval for monitoring wells transfer for the two remaining monitoring wells. On January 31, 2013 the <br />Division received a letter from Mr. Stover addressing the items discussed in the January 22, 2013 letter. <br />IL CRITERIA AND SCHEDULE FOR BOND RELEASE <br />PHASE I <br />Rule 3.03.1(2)(a) states, "Up to sixty percent of the applicable bond amount shall be released when the <br />permittee successfully completes backfilling, regrading, and drainage control in accordance with the <br />approved reclamation plan." With regard to Phase I bond release, the approved reclamation plan for the <br />Hamilton Mine calls for backfilling all of the excavated pits with spoil and finish graded so the final <br />topographic configuration will be the same or nearly the same as the post mining topographic <br />configuration shown on the Final Contours Map (Drawing No. 120). The entire site was granted Phase I <br />bond release as discussed above except for the Pond A and B area. Pond B was approved to be left in <br />place as a permanent impoundment. For this bond release application, the applicant request Phase I, II <br />and III bond release for the Pond A area (1.6 acres). For Pond A, in terms of backfilling and grading, <br />Section 2.05.4(2)(b) of the Hamilton Mine permit requires the operator to simply push the embankment <br />back into the pond and regrade the area. <br />Page 5 of 16 <br />